Linking Conservation and Transportation: Using the State Wildlife Action Plans to

Protect Wildlife from Road Impacts

This report was supported by The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation

and Surdna Foundation

ABOUT DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Defenders of Wildlife is a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities.

This report was made possible with the generous support of The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and Surdna Foundation.

AUTHORS Patricia White, Defenders of Wildlife Julia Michalak, Defenders of Wildlife Jeff Lerner, Defenders of Wildlife

PRODUCTION Kassandra Kelly, Defenders of Wildlife Allison Barra Srinivas, Defenders of Wildlife

© 2007 Defenders of Wildlife 1130 17th Street NW

Washington D.C. 20036 202.682.9400

http://www.defenders.org

COVER PHOTOGRAPHS • Sam Hancock • Courtesy of California4Life and

Flickr.com • Courtesy of Parks Canada • Julia Michalak

RESEARCH Jesse Feinberg, Defenders of Wildlife

http://www.defenders.org

Linking Conservation and Transportation: Using the State Wildlife Action Plans to Protect Wildlife from

Road Impacts

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE Washington D.C. ● May 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary Wildlife and Roads Why Link Conservation and Transportation Planning?

SAFETEA-LU Section 6001 How can the State Wildlife Action Plans help?

How did the State Wildlife Action Plans address Transportation Planning? Threat Summary

Alteration of the physical environment Mortality from road collisions Modification of animal behavior Alteration of the chemical environment Spread of exotic species Increased human use of an area Mortality from construction

Action Summary Spatial Actions and Transportation Planning

Linking Transportation and Conservation

Transportation Planning Process Best Management Practices Vegetation Management Partners in the Transportation Planning Community

State Transportation Agencies (Departments of Transportation - DOTs) Metropolitan areas over 200,000 people Cities over 50,000 people Small communities and counties

Interagency Coordination Connecting Transportation and Land Use Planning

Recommendations for Starting a Cooperative Transportation Planning Program

Learn the Transportation Planning Process Provide Meaningful Technical Assistance Target Education Strategically Increase Capacity

Conclusions Literature Cited Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography of Relevant Transportation Planning Resources

1 5 5 6 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 20 20 25 29 31 31 31 31 31 32 35 37 37 38 39 40 42 43 45

6

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

T he placement and design of transportation infrastructure has significant impacts on wildlife and biodiversity protection. Most obviously, roads, highways and vehicle travel cause immediate mortality through vehicle collisions. However, roads also destroy and fragment habitat, increase air and water pollution loads, spread invasive species, modify animal behavior and increase human access to previously remote areas (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Scientists can measure these impacts up to 100 meters from the road’s edge (Forman et al. 2003). As a result, researchers estimate that each mile of highway has measurable effects on 48 acres of habitat (Council on Environmental Quality 1974) and, collectively, our transportation system negatively affects one fifth of the land area in the United States (Forman et al. 2003). Habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation are widely viewed as among the most significant causes of species imperilment in the United States (Wilcove et al. 1998). The Endangered Species Act currently lists 1,878 species as either threatened or endangered. However, an additional 15,000 species in the United States are considered globally “at risk” by conservation organizations (NatureServe 2006). It makes both economic and ecological sense to protect these at risk species before they reach the point of endangerment. The transportation planning process offers an important opportunity for proactive conservation work. If transportation planners have information and technical assistance about important conservation resources, they can do a better job of avoiding impacts to important areas and minimizing or mitigating unavoidable impacts.

Enacted in 2005, section 6001 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that transportation planners consult with available conservation and biodiversity plans during their long-range planning process. As of October 2005, every state in the U.S. completed a State Wildlife Action Plan aimed at assessing conservation needs for at risk species. The development of these Action Plans means that all states, the District of Columbia and all U.S. territories have biodiversity plans that can inform transportation and help fulfill the section 6001 planning requirements. We reviewed the Action Plans from all 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine to what extent they identify roads and highways as a threat to wildlife and how they can be used to help alleviate that threat. We searched each of the Action Plans for references to transportation key words including roads, highways and vehicles. We then coded each reference into a series of threat and action themes and identified commonalities across all Plans.1 We found that all 51 Action Plans recognized that roads and highways have a negative impact on wildlife. Eleven states indicated that transportation infrastructure constituted a priority statewide threat (AK, AL, AR, DC, FL, MI, NH, OR, SD, VA and VT); eight states prioritized transportation infrastructure as a threat to particular regions, habitats or species taxa; and TX and WY strongly emphasized transportation threats (see Map 1 on page 8).

1 Our report focuses on public highways that are built and maintained by county, state and federal agencies and used by the general driving public. We excluded references to the impacts of logging roads, off road trails, illegal roads or roads built to facilitate oil and gas exploration from our analysis.

2

In most of these passages, states referenced transportation infrastructure as part of larger-scale issues like habitat fragmentation and general development. The remaining 30 states did not rank or emphasize transportation infrastructure as a threat to wildlife. In contrast, Defenders’ found that 37 states identified development as a significant issue either statewide or to a particular region or habitat type within the state (Michalak and Lerner 2007). Collectively, the Action Plans included references to all seven categories of ecological effects of roads on wildlife as identified by Trombulak and Frissell (2000): alteration of the physical environment (referenced by 48 Plans), mortality from collisions (35 Plans), behavior modification (31 Plans), alteration of the chemical environment (28 Plans), increased invasive species (21 Plans), increased human use of area (9 Plans) and mortality from construction (6 Plans). The Plans called attention the transportation network’s contribution to habitat loss and fragmentation, mortality from vehicle collisions, barriers to migration and dispersal, pollution through run-off, salt and exhaust, spreading invasive plant species and increased recreation use. We also reviewed the Plans to determine the actions that the states propose to address transportation threats. Using these references, we identified a series of action themes which we grouped into the following categories: improve interagency coordination, integrate planning efforts, design roads to minimize impacts, apply vegetation management, continue research and monitoring efforts, protect land, educate the public and increase capacity. More Plans included actions relating to coordination with transportation planners

than any other action category. Congress required the states to include “plans for coordinating the development, implementation, review, and revision of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Comprehensive Plan [Action Plan] with Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian tribes that manage significant land and water areas…” (US FWS 2001). Although the majority of Action Plans identified actions to improve coordination and integration of transportation planning and biodiversity conservation, almost none identified specific points in the transportation planning process where this integration could take place. Only 13 Action Plans indicated that transportation planners were either invited or in fact participated in the Action Plan’s development. Transportation planning is an extremely convoluted and extensive process. It will help resource agencies and conservationists significantly to have a firm understanding of all phases of transportation planning in their state. Traditionally, resource agencies and biologists get involved with a transportation project during the permit review and environmental assessment stages. At this late stage, making significant changes means delays, added costs and usually little environmental benefit. Instead, state wildlife agencies and other conservationists can have a far more productive and effective influence by getting involved during both long and short range planning. The former covers a 20 year time

3

horizon while the latter focuses on the next 2-5 years. Working with planners at these stages can help ensure that especially damaging projects are either removed or noted before significant resources are dedicated to a specific project. Transportation planning revolves around maps and spatial analysis. In order to work effectively with transportation planners, natural resources agencies will need to provide them with spatially explicit data. Twenty-five states included maps of priority conservation areas in their Action Plan. Only eight states included sharing spatial data with transportation planners as an action. This stands in sharp contrast to the 39 states that included sharing spatial data with land use planners as an action to help address sprawl and development impacts. The recently authorized section 6001 of SAFETEA-LU has significant implications for implementation of the Action Plans. The requirement for comparing conservation and transportation plans offers an opportunity for a proactive, non-regulatory approach to reducing transportation impacts. In addition, SAFETEA-LU authorizes transportation agencies to fund liaison staff positions, invasive species control and further planning. Finally, transportation mitigation funding for unavoidable impacts can provide much needed dollars for land protection and restoration. Based on the findings in this report, we have identified a set of implementation recommendations for natural resource agencies interested in getting more involved in transportation planning. These include: Learn the Transportation Planning Process: Transportation planning is a complicated

process that involves scores of planners and occurs over long time frames. Understanding the various phases of this process and being familiar with the time frames and deadlines for transportation planning in your state will be essential in order to engage transportation planners effectively. This report offers a very general overview of transportation planning. To learn more about transportation planning, talk with your state transportation agency and review some of the literature highlighted in Appendix A of this report. Provide Meaningful Technical Assistance: Transportation planners are likely to have little to no background in wildlife conservation. Wildlife agencies and conservationists can play a significant role by providing meaningful technical assistance. In the case of transportation, this means sharing spatial data for priority species, habitat and conservation area locations with planners. Transportation planners absolutely rely on maps and spatial analysis to do their planning and will have significant difficulty using non-spatial data. In addition, resource agencies can create sustained and consistent partnerships between transportation and natural resource planners. Doing so will ensure that transportation agencies have a trusted contact they can access reliably for questions and assistance. Target Education Strategically: Target elected officials, metropolitan planning organizations and long-range transportation planners to inform decision makers about the impacts of roads on wildlife and ecosystems. Wildlife agencies can provide workshops and training sessions about biodiversity and how transportation planners can use their State Wildlife Action Plan as a guide for protecting biodiversity.

4

Increase Capacity: Keeping on top of transportation planning, new projects, public involvement and conservation needs relating to road and highways is a full time job. Luckily, the federal government provides billions of dollars to the states for transportation planning and construction. The state agencies are authorized to use part of that funding to create joint positions with resource agencies, research transportation impacts and best management practices and further conservation and transportation planning efforts. Furthermore, the strategic use of mitigation dollars for priority land conservation and habitat restoration can provide a much needed boost to existing conservation resources. Given the resources available, every state should have natural resource staff engaged in transportation planning.

The State Wildlife Action Plans are officially known as Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (CWCS). Several states have chosen unique names like Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative and Nebraska’s Wildlife Legacy Project. This report refers to all the Plans as State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) or simply as Action Plans or “State Plans.”

5

WILDLIFE AND ROADS

T hat roads have a negative impact on wildlife is no surprise to any American who has traveled the vast network of highways in the United States. Drivers and passengers across the U.S. risk collisions with wildlife of all types and sizes every day that they drive. In the case of large animals, these collisions threaten not only the animal’s life, but the human passengers’ as well. In addition to posing a significant hazard to drivers, wildlife-vehicle collisions can contribute to species level decline. In spite of the efforts by many organizations and policymakers to reverse declines among native animals and plants, the list of species at risk continues to grow. There are currently 1,878 species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2006), but an additional 15,000 species are considered globally at risk in the United States (NatureServe 2006). The familiar mortality from wildlife-vehicle collisions can be a significant contributor to this decline. Habitat loss and fragmentation from road construction is a more insidious, although less readily apparent, threat to biodiversity. After more than a century of road building, the United States is covered with over four million miles of pavement, adding 5,500 new miles every year. For each mile of highway, up to 48 acres of habitat is destroyed (Council on Environmental Quality 1974). With only 40% of the historic native vegetation remaining (Bryer et al. 2000), habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation are the leading causes of species imperilment in the United States (Wilcove et al. 1998). Urban development in particular consumes 2.2 million acres across the country every year (NRCS 2000), much of it wildlife habitat. The ecological impacts of our transportation system extend beyond the boundary of the roads themselves. Roads can alter animal

behavior by causing animals to shift their home range, changing migration patterns, altering reproductive success, affecting escape responses and influencing an animal’s physiological state (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Research shows that impacts, such as traffic noise that disrupts avian nesting behavior, can be measured over 100 meters from the road’s edge (Forman et al. 2003). Roads lead to habitat degradation by increasing pollution run off, reducing water quality and facilitating the spread of invasive species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Based on these far reaching effects, researchers estimate that our transportation system negatively affects one fifth of the land area in the United States (Forman et al. 2003). Why Link Conservation and Transportation Planning? There are two mechanisms for reducing the impacts of roads on wildlife: 1) alter the design of existing roads to facilitate safe wildlife crossings and reducing surrounding environmental impacts, and 2) proactively incorporate wildlife into transportation planning so that new roads avoid sensitive areas and habitats to begin with. As we enter the 21st century, we are well equipped with the science and technology to achieve these goals. What we do need is a new level of cooperation between wildlife agencies, conservation advocates and transportation planners. Transportation planning provides a key opportunity for conservationists to influence where roads are built, how they are designed and how effectively transportation agencies mitigate for unavoidable impacts. Successfully designing a transportation system to have minimal impacts on wildlife requires that conservationists get involved in the early stages of planning. Long-range transportation planning extends over a 20 year time horizon with periodic updates every few years.

6

Traditionally, environmental concerns are addressed during the environmental review process near the end of a project’s approval. At this point, the transportation agency and associated land use planners have invested significant resources in the project and it is difficult and costly to change course in any meaningful way. If wildlife biologists can participate in the early stages of transportation planning, they have a better chance of influencing transportation policy successfully.

SAFETEA-LU Section 60012 The need for greater coordination between transportation planning and environmental protection was confirmed by the most recent federal transportation bill. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed into law, funding the nation’s highway program through 2009 with $265 billion in federal funding. In the final bill, Congress included provisions that require transportation planners to consider wildlife conservation early in the transportation planning process. Under new law, each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and state department of transportation (DOT) must consult with federal, state, tribal and local land use management, natural resources, wildlife, environmental protection, conservation and historic protection agencies while developing their long range transportation plans. The law states, “Consultation under clause (i) shall involve comparison of transportation plans to State and tribal conservation plans or maps, if available, and comparison of transportation plans to inventories of natural or historic resources, if available.” Each plan will include a discussion of the type and location of potential mitigation activities that will offset unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the proposed transportation development. These provisions constitute a revolutionary change in transportation law, with the potential to protect millions of acres from unplanned development and provide funding to restore

habitat connectivity, relieve traffic pressure on our public lands and prevent the spread of roadside invasive species. For the first time in history, wildlife conservation will be one of the first factors considered in transportation planning, rather than the last. How can the State Wildlife Action Plans help? As part of the federal State Wildlife Grants Program, each state and U.S. territory was required to complete a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan (Action Plan) that addresses species of greatest conservation need and their major threats. For the Action Plan development and implementation, Congress required the wildlife agencies to coordinate with other government agencies and land managers and to use extensive public involvement. The intent was for the Action Plans to be the best available and most complete compilation of conservation information in each state. Although there are no doubt missing data sets, the Action Plans are a valuable central resource for conservation information. The Action Plans provide an especially significant opportunity for states to adopt a proactive approach to transportation planning. SAFETEA-LU section 6001 provides the incentive for transportation agencies to work with wildlife agencies early on in the planning process. For the first time, transportation agencies will have access to comprehensive natural resource data at the planning stage, rather than waiting until environmental review. The State Wildlife Grants Program has ensured that every part of the United States currently has a conservation plan available to compare with transportation plans. In addition to providing critical information to transportation planners complying with SAFETEA-LU, the Action Plans can also raise awareness about road impacts on wildlife, coordinate conservation activity among state, regional and local agencies and conservation organizations and identify solutions to transportation/wildlife conflicts.

2http://www.defenders.org/habitat/highways/safetea/safetea.pdf

http://www.defenders.org/habitat/highways/safetea/safetea.pdf

7

HOW DID THE STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANS ADDRESS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING?

A s part of the State Wildlife Grants program, Congress required the states to address certain elements in their Action Plans. The elements most relevant to transportation planners and SAFTEA-LU are the identification of species of greatest conservation need, priority habitats, conservation threats and actions to address those threats. The Plans presented some of this information spatially and 25 states included maps of priority conservation areas. In addition, the states are required to coordinate the development and implementation of their Plans with federal, state and local agencies that manage significant lands and waters in their state or whose activities have an impact on wildlife. Therefore, the Plans can not only provide transportation planners with lists of priority species and habitats, but also suggest road design and landscape level planning best practices that will reduce the impacts of roads on wildlife. To identify transportation issues and themes across all states, we searched the Plans from all 50 states and the District of Columbia for references to transportation, roads, highways, and vehicles. We then coded each passage for threat and action themes and consolidated the codes into broad categories. Our report focuses on public highways that are built and maintained by county, state and federal agencies and used by the general driving public. We excluded references to the impacts of logging roads, off road trails, illegal roads or roads built to facilitate oil and gas exploration from our analysis. Many states discussed these important issues and we highly recommend that a similar assessment be done for these other road types. We only used threats and actions that were clearly linked with transportation in the text. For example, although virtually all the plans

included acquisition as a general conservation action, it was only included in this analysis if it was clearly proposed in response to transportation development as a threat. Transportation planning is tightly wedded to land use planning and residential and commercial development. Residential and commercial development patterns and intensity strongly influence a community’s transportation needs and there is broad consensus that newly constructed roads can encourage additional development (Moore and Thorsnes 1994). It is possible that states implied transportation infrastructure in their discussions of general development threats. Although we excluded passages that did not specifically mention transportation or roads, Defenders completed a separate report that analyzes how the Plans address land use planning and residential and commercial development impacts. We conducted separate analyses of transportation and land use issues because they are both critical issues individually and because the actions to address each differ. The land use report found that all 51 Plans included development as a threat and 37 Plans indicated that it was a significant concern. We encourage readers to view these reports together to get a more comprehensive picture of how the Action Plans can help address overall development threats.

8

Threat Summary All 51 Action Plans recognized roads and highways as a threat to species of greatest conservation need in their respective states.3 It was difficult to assess the relative priority that states place on transportation threats, as not all states explicitly prioritized threats. We found eleven states that indicated that transportation infrastructure constituted a priority statewide threat (AK, AL, AR, DC, FL, MI, NH, OR, SD, VA and VT); eight states prioritized transportation infrastructure as a threat to particular regions, habitats or species taxa; and TX and WY strongly emphasized transportation threats (see Map 1). In most of these passages, states referenced transportation infrastructure as part of larger-scale issues like habitat fragmentation and general development. The remaining 30 states did not rank or emphasize transportation infrastructure as a threat to wildlife.

In contrast, Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) found that 37 states identified residential and commercial development as a significant issue either statewide or to a particular region or habitat type within the state (Michalak and Lerner 2007). Given the inherent connection between general development and roads and highways, it is possible that if a state ranked “development” as a priority threat, transportation development is included in that descriptor. The Defenders’ report, “Linking Conservation and Land Use Planning,” found that eight states indicated that development was the greatest threat to wildlife statewide; seventeen states indicated that development was a top priority threat to specific regions or habitats; and twelve states emphasized development as a significant issue.

3Defenders 2006 report on the plans states that 31 plans included roads as a threat. Some states have updated their plans since that assessment was completed and others did not include roads in their lists of threats, but did include language indicating that roads negatively affect wildlife and conservation efforts.

9

We categorized threat passages according to the seminal article, Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities by Stephen Trombulak and Christopher Frissell (2000). None of these effects (see Table 1) occur in isolation and the presence of a road will ultimately lead to many or even all of these impacts. As a result, we coded each threat

reference for as many of the threat categories as was appropriate. For instance, by altering the physical and chemical environment, roads facilitate the spread of invasive species. Due to increased human activity, some wildlife species may modify their behavior and avoid otherwise suitable habitat near roads.

Table 1 Transportation Threat Categories Transportation Threat Category (number of Plans referencing each category)

Category Description

Alteration of the physical environment (48)

This category includes references to habitat loss and fragmentation, impacts to hydrologic regimes, increased sedimentation of waterways and changes in heat or noise levels.

Mortality from collisions (35)

Related references included roadkill, road related mortality or vehicle collisions.

Behavior modification (31)

This category includes references to roads as barriers to wildlife movement, dispersal, or migration (for either terrestrial or aquatic species), disruption of social structures, reduced reproductive success or reduction in overall fitness.

Alteration of the chemical environment (28)

These Plans included references to road salt application, pollution run-off from non-point sources or due to contaminants such as oil, gasoline, metals or other chemicals.

Increased Invasive Species (21)

This category includes references to the connection between roads and invasive species. States in this category noted that roadsides disturbed by road construction frequently provide ideal conditions for spreading invasives. In addition, some transportation agencies have or still do actively plant fast growing non-native species to stabilize slopes along roads.

Increased human use of area (9)

A few Plans recognized that roads facilitate human access to adjacent areas. The presence of a road can encourage residential or commercial development or increase access for people interested in recreation, poaching or overexploitation of hunted or fished species.

Mortality from construction (6)

A few Plans referred to habitat degradation from road construction activities that cause erosion or sedimentation.

10

References to Alterations to the Physical Environment Arizona: “Roads contribute to habitat fragmentation and are linked as well to other major habitat altering factors such as timber removal, fire ignition and suppression, fuel wood collection, and recreation” (pp. 71). Florida: “Roads were identified as one of the most critical sources of many of the stresses identified for terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems in Florida. Not only do roads have direct effects on habitat destruction, fragmentation, sediment movement, hydrological and fire regimes, etc., but they also exacerbate development and conversion effects. Thus, the ecological effects of roads far exceed their footprint across habitats” (pp. 459). Michigan: “Priority Threats: Altered sediment loads - accelerated erosion from human sources has been described as the most significant cause of pollution in the Midwest region (Waters 1995). Poor soil erosion control methods during construction and other earth disturbing activities, operation of hydropower facilities, poorly designed and maintained road crossings in stream and wetland systems, and recreational activities on stream banks all lead to high sediment loads in aquatic systems. When sediments overwhelm a system, the geomorphology (pattern, dimension and profile) may be disrupted, leading to undesirable changes and further instability of the system (Rosgen 1996)” (Ch 1, pp.58). North Dakota: “In the last 150 years, the landscape has changed dramatically. Although tracts of native prairie still exist in many areas, they are traversed by a road nearly every mile” (pp. 35). Virginia: “The decline and fragmentation of habitat emerged as an area of concern in all input sessions. This issue was consistently ranked as one of the highest priority concerns across the sessions. Loss of habitat due to commercial, residential and roadway development was repeatedly mentioned. Lack of land use controls and development sprawl are viewed as major contributing factors to the increases fragmentation of existing habitats and wildlife corridors” (pp. 3-42).

Alteration of the physical environment Forty-eight states linked transportation infrastructure to alterations of the physical environment. Roads destroy and fragment the habitat wherever they are built and transform the environment well beyond the pavement’s edge. At ground level, soil water content and density change leading to altered surface-water flow, run off patterns and sedimentation. By opening the canopy and removing vegetation, the amount of light and heat increases. Additional light invites different plant species,

often replacing native communities. Road surfaces store heat, creating heat islands that attract species like birds and snakes. Traffic stirs up dust and other contaminants that settle on plants, blocking necessary processes like photosynthesis and transpiration. In addition, traffic noise can make roadside areas inhospitable to certain nesting songbirds (Forman and Deblinger 2000).

11

References to Mortality from Road Collisions Alabama: “The U.S. Highway 90 causeway is a major source of mortality to females and hatchlings, which should be minimized with the use of turtle barriers and other appropriate devices” (Ch 4, pp. 204). Arizona: “In a 10 year period the Department has documented 456 elk/vehicle collisions over a 30km stretch of Arizona State Route 260” (pp. 51-52). Virginia: “Statewide Threats: Road-related mortality is largely related to reptiles. Snakes and turtles are killed in large number on Virginia’s roadways. It also includes early-successional birds, which may use habitat immediately adjacent to roadways and are thus susceptible to vehicular mortality” (pp. 3-27).

Transportation Threats to Amphibians and Reptiles Thirty-seven states identified roads as being particularly damaging to reptile and amphibian species (often referred to together as “herptiles” or “herps”). Collectively, the states identified 56 reptile and amphibian species that are at risk due to the effects of transportation infrastructure. Specific road related impacts that are especially damaging to these species include: spreading invasive species, pollution and sedimentation run off, vehicle collisions, loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitat, hindrance or barrier to movement and migration, and climate change. The Plans suggest a variety of actions to protect herptiles from road-related impacts including: • Avoiding building roads near important habitat and breeding grounds • Develop a spatially-explicit statewide population viability analysis incorporating recent data

on road mortality and movement ecology • Identify areas of high herp road mortality • Fencing roads to inhibit herps from crossing • Providing adequate safe crossing opportunities including tunnels and culverts • Close roads during breeding season

Mortality from road collisions Perhaps more than any other impact, roadkill has been very well documented for certain species. Vehicle collisions claim individual animals regardless of age, sex or condition of the individual animal, and can have substantial effects on a population’s demography. Thirty-five of the Action Plans included mortality from vehicle collisions as a threat and frequently connected collisions to habitat fragmentation and increased road density in migration corridors. Some Plans identified species that are particularly at risk for vehicle collisions, such as “western toad, western pond turtle, salamanders and Columbian white-tailed deer” (WA). Twenty Action Plans highlighted mortality from roads as a significant concern for herpetofauna, signifying a serious threat to an entire taxonomic group. Pennsylvania points out that while road mortality is a significant mortality factor for terrestrial species that rely upon daily or seasonal movements, road mortality is also significant for airborne species like barn owls and Indiana bats who are hit in mid-air collisions with large trucks passing through their foraging corridors.

Delaware states “virtually every taxonomic group of wildlife is vulnerable to road mortality in Delaware.” At least two Plans cite actual roadkill statistics for their states (AZ, NM).

12

Modification of animal behavior The mere presence of a road in wildlife habitat can be enough of a disturbance to alter animal behavior. Roads and highways that bisect habitat can cause wildlife to shift entire home ranges, modify movement patterns and escape responses and change reproductive success and physiological state. Thirty-one of the Action Plans included modification of behavior as a threat. By far, the most often cited cause for modification of animal behavior is the barrier effect roads impose when built within natural dispersal

paths. The Action Plans recognized roads as barriers both to seasonal and lifetime migrations, plant and animal species and terrestrial and aquatic species. However, some Plans point out that roads can make dispersal nearly impossible for species of low mobility such as amphibians, reptiles and some small mammals. Oregon’s Plan says it best, “For example, a two-lane highway may pose an insignificant barrier to elk, but may be impossible for a turtle to cross” (pp. 56).

References to Modification of Animal Behavior Indiana: “As opposed to the dirt paths that once existed, roads and highways are now major barriers to plant and animal dispersal throughout the state. As the landscape of Indiana changes through highway construction, farming and urban development in rural areas, forests become separated from each other, creating barriers to migration and genetic health of species that are dependent upon these areas” (pp. 51 and 59). Iowa: “Road construction is a High stress for amphibians and reptiles because it interrupts travel corridors needed during seasonal and breeding migrations, dispersal, and movements due to environmental changes” (pp. 94). Massachusetts: “The two major causes for habitat loss and fragmentation are human development and road networks, which break up habitats into smaller pieces and isolate those habitats by creating barriers and resistance to animal movement” (Ch 8, pp. 223). Michigan: “Telemetry studies on massasauga rattlesnakes in southern Michigan indicate a high reluctance to cross an asphalt-paved access road recently constructed through an area frequented by the snakes (Kingsbury et al. 2004). Isolation of populations of less mobile species will lead to reduced breeding potential, disruption of dispersal patterns, and diminished genetic variability (Whitcomb et al. 1981, Kingsbury and Gibson 2002)” (Ch 1, pp. 47). Oregon: “Migration is a strong urge in species, and migration routes are often used over decades or centuries, by generations of wildlife. So, when a new obstacle pops up in the route, like a roadway or a housing develop-ment, wildlife may try to find a way through the area, rather than avoid it. This can lead to increased mortality to wildlife on highways and can endanger human safety as well. […] In rural areas, the impacts of roads on wildlife movement will depend on the type of road and the level of use, with impacts increasing with the amount of traffic” (pp. 55-56).

13

Alteration of the chemical environment Beyond the road itself, the vehicles that use the road instigate their own problems. Cars and trucks produce carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming and ozone and heavy metals that contaminate the air, soil, plants, animals and water near roads. Because roads accelerate runoff, they reduce the buffering effects from riparian vegetation and deliver high levels of sediment, nutrients and pollutants to nearby waters. Twenty-eight Plans linked roads to the alteration of the chemical environment. Among the concerns are reduced water quality from chemicals, metals, oil, gasoline and other contaminants entering water as non-point source runoff from roads and parking lots. Transportation agencies often spread salt or sand on roads to melt ice, increase traction or control dust. Salts then wash off the road and into the soil and water nearby, altering pH and elevating chloride and sodium levels. Over time, the accumulation of salt can literally change patterns of succession in aquatic vegetation and disrupt ecological dynamics in lakes. Ten Plans expressed concern about road deicing salt changing soil composition and chemistry and polluting nearby water sources. The Plans recognize impacts to vegetation and even small vegetative communities. Vermont expressed concern that polluted water sources cause decreased fecundity and increased mortality rates for aquatic species like brown trout (pp. 4-9). Arizona noted that large game species are indirectly endangered by road salt. Deer and elk are attracted to and can often be seen licking roads where salt has built up, leading to more wildlife vehicle collisions (pp 77). Salt is a problem even in states like Arizona and Delaware that receive little snowfall and use deicing salt infrequently. “Delaware receives less than 20 inches of snowfall annually, thus road salt application is relatively infrequent. Nonetheless, when

snowfall averages higher than normal statewide or in localized areas, the effects of road salt on key habitats and species can be detrimental” (pp. 37).

References to Alteration of the Chemical Environment - General

Rhode Island: “Sources of contamination from roads are particularly invasive, primarily to aquatic life forms, and coordination with DOT should attempt to mitigate affects from drains and other road run-off into nearby wetlands. Contaminant runoff into Narragansett Bay is a continuing need to be addressed” (pp. 110). Texas: “Chemicals produced and used by people, such as oil from roads and parking lots, enter waters as non-point-source runoff. This has lowered water quality in waters and wetlands adjacent to urban developments” (pp. 475).

References to Alteration of the Chemical Environment - Salt Michigan: “Road salts can affect vegetation and small vegetative communities. A small pocket of unique wetlands in southeastern Michigan that contains a relict forested bog is in jeopardy due to increased salinity from road runoff (MNFI 2005)” (Ch 1, pp. 78). Massachusetts: “Road runoff carrying salts has allowed invasion and expansion of Phragmites into peatlands” (Ch 8, pp.305).

14

Spread of exotic species The construction and presence of roads create perfect conditions for non-native, invasive species to move in and ultimately displace native vegetation. Exotics are able to take advantage of the disturbed, altered conditions created when a road is originally built and native species are stressed or removed altogether. Roads also act as vectors for “hitchhiker” seeds that attach themselves to vehicles. Some roadside exotics are no accident. Transportation agencies have historically planted rapidly growing exotic species on bare ground and slopes after construction to control erosion. Nearly all of the Plans cite invasive species as a conservation threat in their state, but 21 Plans specifically make a connection between exotic species and roads. Plans generally describe the disturbance caused by construction activities and how roads serve as “conduits” (NV) or “vectors” (LA) for the dispersal of non-native and invasive species. In California, nearby roads have spread invasive species like Russian thistle, Saharan mustard and planted tamarisk to dunes, where they stabilize dunes with extensive root systems and block natural migration and shifting of sands (Ch 8, p 144).

References to Spreading Invasive Species Illinois: Under Invasive Species: “…the highly disturbed landscape of Illinois (developed and agricultural lands, fragmented and degraded natural areas) increases the probability of introduced species becoming established; and the state’s massive transportation infrastructure facilitates the spread of established invasive species throughout the state and the continent (Cox 2000).” (III. Statewide Overview, E. Priority Conservation Actions, pp. 81). Nevada: “Road development, both in association with development projects and as a stand-alone independent effect, can cause habitat fragmentation, direct mortality and disturbance of wildlife, and impacts from highway runoff including erosion, sedimentation and contamination. The improper placement of road developments in riparian corridors and meadows can compound the core effects of this activity, and roads of any kind serve as conduits for invasive species” (pp. 19). New Mexico: “Roads, highways, railroad, and utility corridors serve as a means of dispersal for many non-native and invasive plant species. Ground disturbance associated with the creation and maintenance of these facilities provides additional opportunities for establishment of non-native species (Parendes and Jones 2000)” (pp. 76-77).

Invasive species like Scotch Broom (Yellow on Left) in the Western United States often spread rap-idly along road right-of-ways.

Photo Courtesy of theunabonger on Flickr

15

Increased human use of an area Roads are built for many uses -- from mere access into remote areas to full blown development – but they are all built for human activities. Roads increase access to formerly remote areas, thus increasing the frequency and intensity of human activity – both legal and illegal. Nine Plans cited road related changes in human use of land and water as a threat. The most commonly noted change in human use of land and water attributed to roads is the associated development and loss of habitat. As Georgia’s Plan states, “Much of the development of industrial and commercial sites has occurred along Interstate Highway 75 and other major highways” (pp. 57 and 100). A handful of Plans also describe the connection between roads and poaching. Both Arizona and New Mexico say roads facilitate legal and illegal killing and collection of many species, from large game to sensitive reptiles and birds. Mortality from construction In the course of clearing the work site in preparation for road construction, any slow moving organisms are killed. Species that nest underground, like gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) are often buried alive or “entombed” when their dens are bulldozed and eventually paved over. Since 1991, 74,000 of them have been lost beneath highways, golf courses and supermarkets. Compared to mortality from road collisions, few studies have been done on the direct mortality caused during road construction. The actual clearing and construction may last for only weeks or months and few, if any wildlife agency staff would be on the construction site to witness and record the mortality. Our analysis revealed that six Plans included mortality from construction activities in their threats discussion.

References to Increased Human Use of an Area Alaska: “Although transport systems are essential to Alaska’s economy, they are also one of the critical challenges for wildlife and land managers. By their nature, these systems increase the risk that wildlife, primarily species that are hunted, trapped or fished, may be overexploited” (pp. 117). Delaware: “Delaware’s rapid growth forces a seemingly endless cycle of road projects of all sizes, including rerouting of major highways, expansion of many secondary roads, and frequent replacement of culverts and bridges” (Ch 5, pp. 5-3).

References to Mortality from Construction Massachusetts: “As with new developments, road construction, bridge and culvert replacements and pipeline stream crossings can have impacts during both construction and operation. If best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control are not strictly adhered to during construction, streams can be negatively impacted through sedimentation, releases of petrochemicals and construction debris, destabilization of stream banks, and other changes in riparian habitat. Conversely, if the projects are not designed properly in the first place, new bridges and culvert replacements can act as an impediment to fish movement within the streams, while pipelines buried in the streambed can alter the stream gradient” (Ch 4, pp. 79). Utah: “Mountain Plover – Specific Threat: Nest sites vulnerable to road construction” (pp. 6-31).

16

Action Summary Using references to transportation from the Plans, we identified a series of action themes and categories including: improve interagency coordination, integrate planning efforts, design roads to minimize impacts, apply vegetation management, continue research and monitoring efforts, protect land, educate the public and

increase capacity. More Plans included actions relating to coordination with transportation planners than any other action category. Well over half the Plans included at least one action relating to coordination, integrated planning, and road design. Increasing funding and public education were the two least frequently included categories (see Table 2).

Action Category (Number of Plans including at least one related action)

Action Themes (Number of Plans mentioning a similar action)

Coordination (40) • Transportation agency represented at meetings (13) • Coordinate with transportation planners (38) • Enter into an MOU for preventative planning (4) • Share spatial data with transportation planners (8) • Participate in the permitting process (4) • Provide transportation planners with technical assistance (7)

Planning (41) • Incorporate wildlife into transportation planning (15) • Create a system to integrate wildlife and transportation planning (5) • Integrate transportation plans with existing plans (6) • Use effective mitigation (7) • Reduce road density (AR, WI) • Avoid building roads in sensitive areas (31) • Plan roads to minimize fragmentation (18) • Encourage fixing roads rather than building new ones (FL) • Site roads to avoid important water resource buffers (riparian, wetland, etc.) (16) • Close or restore old, underutilized or severely damaged roads (9)

Site Design (39) • Promote Best Management Practices (18) • Install wildlife-friendly road crossings (eg. Over or Underpasses) (19) • Remove unnecessary fences or barriers to wildlife movement along rights-of way

(AZ, CO) • Encourage wildlife friendly fencing (AZ, UT, WA) • Develop wildlife-friendly fencing guidelines (AZ) • Use fences to keep wildlife away from roads or to guide them to over passes (12) • Remove barriers to fish passage/design adequate crossings for aquatic species (16) • Design or maintain roads to reduce sediment run-off (10) • Design roads to reduce pollution run-off (11) • Design roads to address stormwater issues (6) • Install animal crossing warning signs (6) • Design roads to minimize impacts on herpetofauna (20)

Table 2 Actions Categories and Themes

17

Table 2 Actions Categories and Themes (continued) Action Category (Number of plans including at least one related action)

Action Themes (Number of plans mentioning a similar action)

Research (30) and Monitoring (10)

• Explore bioaccumulator plants for roadside buffers (AZ) • Develop Best Management Practices (18) • Compile information on growth management efforts outside the state (AZ) • Develop wildlife migration models/identify barriers/crossings/corridors (14) • Compile information on stresses caused by roads (12) • Identify roadkill hotspots (CT, FL, NJ, VT) • Research wildlife crossing design (9) • Monitor road density (AR, CA, RI, WA) • Monitor roadkill rates (6)

Land Protection (11)

• Protect land from transportation development using easements, acquisition, or incentives (11)

Education (8) • Public Education (eg. Vehicle collisions, feeding wildlife) (8) • Encourage clean-up efforts along highways (AZ)

Funding (5) • Plans suggest a funding sources (5) • Examples of funding suggestions: CA - Motor vehicle and highway impact

fees (gas and vehicle registration tax), DC – Transportation Bill, FL – Road mitigation budget, GA – TEA21 transportation enhancements, recreational trails, PA – Surcharge on speeding tickets.

Vegetation Management (16)

• Use appropriate herbicides to control invasive species along highways (AZ, CT, ME, MI) • Use seed traps to deter invasives from spreading (AZ) • Use native plants in landscaping (11) • Use seed-free hay in sediment control (AZ) • Alter maintenance (i.e. mowing) to minimize harm/maintain grassland (7)

Spatial Actions and Transportation Planning Transportation planning is an inherently spatial exercise. The long range transportation planning process identifies future transportation needs and presents a strategy to address them through a combination of expanding existing corridors, adding addition corridors, or expanding alternative transportation options. Where these corridors are located will have a significant impact on wildlife. Not all areas of the landscape harbor

high quality wildlife habitat. Species and habitat types are distributed unevenly across the landscape and therefore some areas are more important for protection than others. By identifying these areas and sharing this information with long range transportation planners, conservationists have the opportunity to inform the transportation planning process before specific projects are launched. Sharing spatial data with transportation planners early on gives all

18

stakeholders the opportunity to see potential trade-offs between development and natural areas protection and find workable solutions before projects progress too far. Only 25 states included maps of priority conservation areas in their Action Plan. An additional eight states included maps of priority habitat types. The remaining 18 Plans did not include maps of priority habitats or places (see Map 2). Maps can be an effective means of communication between biologists and transportation planners and can also provide clear guidance to transportation planners as the move forward with their plans. areas protection and find workable solutions before projects progress too far. Thirty-one Action Plans recommended that transportation planners alter or prohibit road construction to avoid impacts to high priority

conservation areas. Other Plans suggested closing old and underused roads, fixing old roads rather than building new ones and effectively mitigating for road impacts. In order to implement these actions, wildlife agencies must have, and share with transportation planners, a landscape-level conservation plan that identifies priority conservation areas, or sensitive areas, to avoid or protect through mitigation. Taking a landscape-level view of a region’s conservation needs allows both transportation and conservation planners to understand the trade-offs inherent in various development scenarios. Without this landscape perspective, habitat connectivity and integrity will continue to degrade incrementally, one new road at a time. Only eight states included actions indicating that they were interested in sharing spatial data with transportation planners (see Map 2).

19

Spatial Actions Arkansas: “An immediate need for implementation of this multi-site strategy was realized in the planning for the I-69 corridor, which will run through the ecoregion. Strategy implementers will attempt to ensure I-69 impacts UWGCP portfolio sites minimally if at all, through preventative planning. Implementers will share the ecoregional plan’s areas of significant biodiversity with all levels of appropriate planning entities and agencies” (Ap 3.3, pp. 1929-1930). Georgia: “Develop an MOU between DNR and GDOT to facilitate collaborative efforts to minimize impacts from road construction projects to high priority species and habitats. Share information on locations of rare species and significant natural communities and sites that are suitable for mitigation activities. Emphasize protection of sites that will conserve high priority species and habitats and expand public recreational opportunities” (pp. 32). New Hampshire: “Identify significant travel corridors for species of concern to provide guidance to transportation planners” (pp. 4-59). Vermont: ”A statewide GIS habitat database for use as a predictive model for making transportation decisions related to habitat connectivity. The database utilizes data collected by VTrans Operations and Maintenance road crews as well as data from the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department” (pp. 2-29 - 2-31).

Conclusions The states all acknowledge that roads and highways have negative impacts on wildlife, and many states recognize the need to coordinate with state transportation agencies in order to address this issue. However, the Action Plans do not discuss transportation planning in detail or identify the key points in the process where sharing wildlife data and interagency coordination will be most productive. Furthermore, very few states explicitly recognized the need to share spatial data with transportation planners. Given the

inherently spatial nature of transportation planning, it will be difficult for transportation agencies to work productively with wildlife agencies without having access to maps of priority species and habitat locations. The transportation planning process offers many key opportunities to provide addition protection to species of concern and their habitats. The remainder of this report gives a general overview of transportation planning, the key players involved, and how wildlife biologists can improve this important process.

20

LINKING TRANSPORTATION AND CONSERVATION

A s the Plans clearly indicate, roads and highways have a significant influence on wildlife populations and ecosystem functions. Transportation planning can provide a key leverage point for influencing development at multiple levels in each state. Firstly, in addition to the impacts from the roads themselves, transportation corridors often serve as a catalyst for future residential and commercial development. As particular areas become more accessible, development in those areas is more desirable. Secondly, the inherently regional and interconnected nature of our road and highway systems provides an opportunity to improve regional and national coordination, which is critical for protecting wildlife and natural systems. Finally, the Federal Highway Administration and state level transportation agencies provide a more centralized target audience than local land use planners. Therefore, although working with land use planners is critical, conservationists and wildlife biologists can put their expertise to good use by working with transportation planners. The Transportation Planning Process: Tool for Conservation The transportation planning process offers many opportunities to enhance wildlife conservation activities. The first and best option for protecting wildlife is to avoid placing roads in ecologically significant areas. The transportation planning process itself goes through numerous phases where spatially explicit conservation information can help inform transportation decisions. In addition, there are avenues for advancing wildlife protection by improving transportation best management practices and vegetation management plans to minimize additional impacts of existing and future roads. The majority of the Action Plans advocated for

general integration of wildlife and ecological principles into transportation planning and/or planning road locations to avoid sensitive habitats and important natural resources. Very few Plans outlined a system for how this integration could take place or suggested establishing a process for linking wildlife and transportation planning. Facilitating this integration is a key role for state wildlife agencies. Wildlife biologists can provide transportation planners with technical assistance that includes informing planners of where “sensitive” habitats and species are located. Transportation planning occurs at the federal, state and metropolitan levels of government. Although the Federal Highway Administration provides some guidelines and standards for transportation planning, these guidelines are not requirements and most states do things somewhat differently. Therefore the following discussion on transportation planning gives only a general outline of the process. Within each state, state wildlife agencies and conservationists have the opportunity to work with the state department of transportation (DOT)4 and regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Both levels do their own long-range transportation plans and short-range transportation plans. The former generally covers a planning horizon of at least 20 years while the latter focuses on the next 2 to 5 years. Both planning timeframes (at both the state and MPO levels) provide an opportunity for integrating conservation and transportation planning. Importantly, these planning efforts occur before the agencies and governmental bodies invest heavily in specific projects. Evaluation of environmental impacts occurs far later in the planning process when specific projects have already been chosen and significant investments have already been made.

4State transportation agencies go by a variety of names. For simplicity, in this report we refer to them collectively as DOTs.

21

At that late stage, it is unlikely that developers and DOTs will be willing or financially able to change their project location. Instead, environmental impacts are often mitigated on-site as an afterthought to the entire process. Conservationists have an opportunity to get involved in transportation planning from the beginning, before developers and DOTs have invested in specific projects. Doing so requires an understanding of the variety of planning processes relating to transportation.

Long-range Transportation Planning Both state and MPO planners produce long-range transportation plans (LRTPs). Congress mandated long-range planning, but does not specify the details of how those plans are created. As a result, jurisdictions have approached the task differently. Some long-range plans provide a broad vision for transportation in the planning region, but lack details about how to make that vision a reality. In contrast, other plans provide an assessment of transportation needs in the region with specific strategies for meeting those needs. Transportation planners create long-range plans based on models that illustrate future transportation needs and the impacts of different transportation options. These models currently focus on the number and distribution of trips across a particular region and compare the results to the capacity of the current transportation system. This modeling phase offers an opportunity to view the various environmental impacts associated with different transportation scenarios. Some transportation planners perform impact analyses that assess the impacts to air quality, noise, quality of life, and “life-cycle” costs from various transportation scenarios. Frequently, transportation models focus on automobile travel to the detriment of alternative modes of transportation. Mass transit and other automobile alternatives can benefit wildlife by reducing the pressure to build new roads,

getting more cars off existing roads and reducing carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. As ecological models are developed and improved, they can be integrated with the transportation planning process at this stage. In the meantime, providing maps of priority conservation resources offers the best opportunity to evaluate the impacts of different transportation scenarios. Broadening the scope of long-range transportation planning to include assessments of wildlife habitat intactness and connectivity will result in significant benefits for wildlife. These comparisons can help transportation planners avoid citing new corridors that will fragment important habitat or block migration corridors. During the planning stage, both conservationists and transportation planners have the opportunity to find creative solutions, alter road and highway locations, identify where wildlife crossings should be cited and begin to understand the levels of mitigation that will be required. By identifying the areas where corridors will have significant impacts on wildlife, transportation agencies can avoid conflicts with environmentalists in during the environmental review process. Short-term transportation planning - Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP, or STIP for Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs) States and MPOs also create more concrete near-term plans that focus on possible transportation improvements projects that could occur over the next two to five years. This list is “fiscally restricted” meaning that projects must have an identified potential funding source to make it onto the short-term plan. In addition, all federally funded projects must be part of the STIP list. However, not every project on the plan list actually makes it to implementation.

22

Lo

ng R

ange

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Plan

(LR

TP)

Stat

ewid

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Impr

ovem

ent

Prog

ram

(STI

P)

Proj

ect

Sele

ctio

n

Shar

e da

ta w

ith P

lann

ers:

• I

dent

ify S

tate

wid

e C

onse

rvat

ion

Prio

rity

Area

s • I

dent

ify la

rge-

scal

e w

ildlif

e m

igra

tion

corri

dors

• C

onne

ct tr

ansp

orta

tion

plan

ning

w

ith g

oals

and

obj

ectiv

es fo

r re

gion

al la

nd u

se p

lann

ing

Iden

tify

cons

erva

tion

prio

ritie

s:

• Pro

tect

prio

rity

spec

ies

and

habi

tats

• P

rote

ct c

onne

ctiv

ity a

nd la

rge

habi

tat p

atch

es

• Pro

tect

sen

sitiv

e la

ndsc

ape

feat

ures

• M

aint

ain

ecos

yste

m fu

nctio

ns

• Enc

oura

ge d

evel

opm

ent n

ear

exis

ting

deve

lope

d ar

eas

Com

pare

pro

ject

s w

ith

cons

erva

tion

prio

ritie

s:

• Rev

iew

pro

ject

list

in S

TIP

• C

ompa

re p

ropo

sed

proj

ects

with

map

s of

prio

rity

cons

erva

tion

reso

urce

s • I

dent

ify a

reas

of c

once

rn

whe

re p

ropo

sed

proj

ects

im

pact

wild

life

habi

tats

• C

olla

bora

te to

iden

tify

wor

kabl

e al

tern

ativ

es

NEP

A R

evie

w

Proc

ess

Long

term

vis

ion

for t

he

stat

e fo

r at l

east

the

next

20

year

s.

Shor

t-ter

m p

lann

ing

on tw

o ye

ar c

ycle

.

Incl

udes

futu

re p

roje

ct li

st

Publ

ic

Parti

cipa

tion

Prio

rity

Proj

ects

• Gen

eral

ly

rest

ricte

d to

lega

l re

quire

men

ts.

• Cos

tly a

nd

cont

rove

rsia

l to

requ

est c

hang

es

at th

is p

oint

.

Gre

ates

t Opp

ortu

nity

for I

nflu

ence

Ofte

n in

clud

es p

roje

ct

cost

s

Proj

ects

are

NO

T G

uara

ntee

d to

be

built

Proj

ect

Dev

elop

men

t Pe

rmit

App

rova

l

Con

stru

ctio

n

Publ

ic P

artic

ipat

ion:

• C

omm

ent o

n pr

ojec

ts

• Atte

nd m

eetin

gs

• Adv

ocat

e fo

r min

or

chan

ges

in p

roje

ct lo

catio

n • A

dvoc

ate

for d

esig

n st

anda

rds

and

BM

Ps

(und

er/ o

verp

asse

s, fi

sh

pass

age,

etc

.) • P

rote

ct p

riorit

y ha

bita

t ar

eas

to m

itiga

te fo

r un

avoi

dabl

e im

pact

s

Budg

et

Con

stra

ints

Polit

ics

Leas

t Opp

ortu

nity

for I

nflu

ence

Transportation Planning

State Wildlife Action Plans

Figu

re 1:

Diag

ram

of p

oint

s of i

nter

vent

ion

betw

een

the

Act

ion

Plan

s and

the

trans

porta

tion

plan

ning

pro

cess

.

23

Conservationists can review the projects on the short-term lists, compare them with maps of important conservation resources and corridors, and identify where conflicts with wildlife are likely to occur. Once again, commenting and voicing concerns about these projects at this earlier stage will give transportation agencies the chance to alter or drop projects that are likely to have significant environmental impact. At this point, very few resources are committed to individual projects and there is no guarantee that any specific project will move forward. Commenting during the short-range planning provides a better opportunity for making changes than waiting until the project is officially selected and further site level planning goes forward.

Project Selection and Development Despite the millions of dollars and countless hours of labor that go into creating the long and short-range plans, the final list of projects selected for implementation is heavily influenced by politics, budget constraints, ear-marks, and other non-science based influences. Thus the final list of projects for implementation may differ significantly from the STIP list. However, there are often avenues for public input during the project selection stage. An even better option is to get a joint transportation/natural resource employee on staff who can participate consistently in the project scoping and selection process. Project development occurs after a project is selected, potential funding is identified and further site level planning is completed. Transportation agencies generally open the process up to public and environmental review at this late stage. This is also the time when environmental groups traditionally get involved. At this stage, it is difficult for transportation agencies to make significant changes and often the only avenue for influencing the process is through litigation

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Litigation is costly for all sides, exacerbates animosity and still may not result in significant changes to the project. By creating good faith partnerships between transportation and wildlife agencies, both sides have the opportunity to find workable solutions without litigation. At the very least, getting involved with the entire planning process demonstrates a willingness to work collaboratively and proactively rather than relying solely on reactive legal recourse.

Effective Mitigation Mitigation is intended to compensate for any unavoidable environmental impacts associated with a given project and can take many forms including land protection, habitat restoration, and terrestrial or aquatic wildlife crossing installation. Traditionally, regulatory agencies determine a project’s environmental impacts and required mitigation action as one of the last stages in project planning. At this late stage, not only is it nearly impossible to alter the project to avoid or minimize impacts, but also transportation agencies must choose mitigation sites quickly, to expedite project approval, and usually with minimal knowledge of the land’s ecological value. This approach means that mitigation areas rarely contribute to larger conservation planning goals. Furthermore, addressing environmental impacts at the end of a project limits the transportation agency’s ability to avoid and minimize rather than mitigate impacts. Recognizing these shortfalls, eight federal agencies (BLM, EPA, FHWA, NOAA, NPS, USACE, USDA FS, and USFWS) recently collaborated to create: Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects. This report encourages integrating plans across agency boundaries and endorses ecosystem-based mitigation. For more information on Eco-Logical, go to http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/

24

References to Integrating the Action Plans and Transportation Planning Arkansas: “The goal of the roads/right of way (ROW) multi-site strategy is to prevent stresses caused by road/ROW construction by reducing road/ROW construction in targeted areas, and ensure roads/ROWs that are built and maintained in targeted areas are done so with the least impact possible. Road Construction/ROW Action Items: • Develop federal partnerships—esp. SENRLG • Develop TNC’s information lobbying capacity at the division and state level to all relevant

partners. Develop MOUs for early preventative planning. • Share PCAs with state heritage and DOTs” (pp. 1929-1930).

California: “Transportation planning should give high priority to preserving large core habitat areas, and, when possible, locate future highway or rail construction along existing transportation corridors. Current transportation proposals include several proposed roads that would bisect the Mount Hamilton area and a high-speed rail line that would bisect a number of regional State Park lands. If implemented, these proposals would fragment wildlands and important wildlife habitat areas” (Ch 10, pp. 198-199).

Florida: • “Support multi-agency review and coordination of the planning and permitting process for

roads, bridges, and causeways, i.e., the Florida Department of Transportation’s Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process (http://etdmpub.flaetat.org/website/PublicInfo/help/ETDM.pdf)

• Multi-agency and partner adoption of the “Cooperative Conservation Blueprint” process (see Chapter Florida’s Strategic Vision) that can be used for transportation planning

• State-sanctioned approach for identification of areas where new roads may or may not be constructed and development of criteria for best protecting wildlife and supporting smart growth where road expansion is likely” (pp. 459 – 460).

New Hampshire: “Contact with state and federal agencies will be made to integrate the priorities and strategies of the WAP into their plans and operations. Agencies and their existing plans include but are not limited to: NHDOT, including the Long Range Statewide Transportation Plan due to be completed Spring 2006” (pp. 7-2).

Oregon: “Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) shares staff and consults with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the effects of road construction on habitat, particularly fish passage. ODOT is increasingly addressing habitat connectivity and exploring opportu-nities to incorporate wildlife passage into road and highway plans. A statewide bridge reconstruction project launched in 2002 has served as a means to streamline planning and work in concert with fish and wildlife programs” (pp. a:23).

Vermont: “For the past several years, the Vermont Agency of Transportation has had several important initiatives related to road ecology. This work is a collaborative partnership with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department and includes a Wildlife Crossing Steering Committee, chaired by VTrans' Director of Program Development. Initiatives include: • The effects of new transportation projects on habitat and consideration of animal and fisheries

passage are considered early in the project planning process. These effects are also considered in the maintenance and upgrading of the existing transportation infrastructure. One recent and very successful example of the former is agreement reached among the regulatory agencies regarding a major expansion of Route 78 through the Missisquoi National Wildlife refuge” (pp. 2-29 - 2-31).

http://etdmpub.flaetat.org/website/

25

The section 6001 consultation provides an opportunity for wildlife agencies to inform the transportation planning process and emphasize that avoiding and minimizing impacts is more ecologically and economically effective. For unavoidable impacts, the Action Plans can help align mitigation projects with the conservation goals and priorities of each state. Wildlife and transportation agencies can work together to develop a set of potential mitigation projects for a given landscape that will contribute to protecting and maintaining a functional ecological network. Rather than planning mitigation for each project in isolation, transportation agencies can then “bundle” mitigation from multiple projects and even direct that mitigation off-site to the most ecologically important areas. The state wildlife agencies will benefit by using mitigation to fund necessary conservation projects and actions identified in their Action Plans. A recent Federal Highway Administration Report found that on average 2-12% of total transportation project costs are spent on environmental compliance. Given the high cost of many transportation projects, even this small percentage can result in states spending up to $300 or $400 million each year on environmental compliance (Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 2006). Those are significant dollars compared to the average $1 million going to each state under the State Wildlife Grants Program. Approaching mitigation with a comprehensive strategic plan will help transportation agencies move projects through environmental review faster while also ensuring more effective benefits for wildlife. Best Management Practices The term “Best management practice,” or BMP, describes a design standard or operational procedure that will minimize environmental impacts. Many states suggested developing or implementing BMPs in order to reduce pollution or sediment run-off, better manage roadside vegetation, minimize barriers

for aquatic species, and/or facilitate wildlife crossings for both large (ungulates and predators) and small (reptiles and amphibians) species. Terrestrial wildlife crossings Almost all animal and plant species need to migrate or disperse from one place to another at some point in their lives to find new territory, food or mates. Migration and dispersal of individuals is critical to maintaining genetic variation in the larger population and to repopulating open habitat patches. Because many species are either unable or unwilling to cross agricultural fields or urban areas, scientists recommend maintaining linear strips of natural habitat between larger protected areas. Habitat connectivity or linkage analyses identify these important migration and dispersal corridors. The results of these analyses can inform transportation planning by identifying locations either to avoid developing roads or, for existing roads, to install wildlife crossings. Nineteen Action Plans advocated for installing terrestrial wildlife crossings to reduce vehicle related mortality. At a minimum, successful crossings must have exclusionary fencing to funnel animals to the crossing and secured habitat on either side (either publicly owned lands or under conservation easement). Other considerations include size, openness ratio, vegetation/cover and adequate light, air and water flow where appropriate (Donaldson 2005). Given that designing, building and maintaining wildlife crossings can be very expensive, it is crucial to site each one where it is needed most. A comprehensive habitat connectivity or linkage analysis is essential for prioritizing the most important locations (Barnum 2003). In order to be most effective, we recommend that the linkage analysis be created in cooperation with the state’s transportation

26

Wildlife Action Plans and Habitat Linkages Analyses

Roads are recognized both in the Plans and in the conservation literature as a significant cause of habitat fragmentation (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). All the Action Plans recognized habitat fragmentation as a threat to wildlife and many emphasized fragmentation as among the most critical threats in their state. To varying degrees, the plans all encouraged reducing fragmentation and increasing connectivity. Twenty-seven Action Plans stressed minimizing fragmentation and maintaining habitat connectivity in the context of transportation planning. The following actions for doing so were the most common (in descending order):

• coordinate with transportation departments, other agencies, FHWA, and other groups • use maps to identify places to avoid in transportation planning and/or to preserve • integrate habitat and wildlife corridor features into the road design • encourage the construction of overpasses, underpasses, and culverts • identify frequent wildlife movement corridors

Several states plan to work with transportation planners to create a linkage analysis or to share their analysis with transportation planners. California: “To address regional habitat fragmentation, federal, state, and local agencies, along with nongovernmental conservation organizations, should support the protection of the priority wildlands linkages identified by the South Coast Missing Linkages project” (Ch 9, pp. 165-166). Michigan: “Incorporate identified linkage areas (between isolated patches of priority landscape features) into local, regional and statewide planning and management efforts” (Ch 1, pp. 49). New Hampshire: “Map landscape connectivity using models to repre-sent spatial processes, such as dispersal, migration, colonization, and foraging. Mapping connectivity and buffering critical wildlife areas can target lands that help retain ecological connectivity and sustain wildlife diversity… Initiatives are in place to secure funding to model landscape connectivity from transportation planning resources.” (pp. 5-8) New Mexico: “A promising opportunity lies in cooperating and coordinating with the New Mexico Department of Transportation and Federal Highways Administration to identify important wildlife habitat linkages and wildlife movement corridors that have been fragmented by highways, roadways and other human travel corridors” (Ch 6, pp. 437). Oregon: “Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) shares staff and consults with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the effects of road construction on habitat, particularly fish passage. ODOT is increasingly addressing habitat connectively and exploring opportu-nities to incorporate wildlife passage into road and highway plans” (Appendices, pp. a:23). Vermont: Transportation initiatives - “A statewide GIS habitat database for use as a predictive model for making transportation decisions related to habitat connectivity. The database utilizes data collected by VTrans Operations and Maintenance road crews as well as data from the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department” (pp. 2-29 - 2-31).

27

agency and fully incorporated into the State’s Wildlife Action Plan. Working with the state’s transportation agency will help to ensure that the plan is accepted and used by transportation planners. Also, transportation agencies can contribute funding to help create the plan. Incorporating this linkage analysis into the State Wildlife Action Plan will ensure that it receives wide circulation and support. In addition, consolidating existing information into the Action Plan is essential in order to create a central information resource for conservation statewide. About 15 states have either completed or begun a linkage analysis, but only a fraction of these discussed this effort in their plans. During section 6001 consultations, both state and regional long-range transportation plans can be overlaid with the linkage map to identify and prioritize potential locations for wildlife crossings. For more information on wildlife crossings, see http://www.wildlifeandroads.org/ http://www.wildlifecrossings.info. Aquatic wildlife crossings Many states were concerned about the impacts of development on water quality and hydrologic regimes. Sixteen states specifically expressed concern over fish passage blockages that occur as a result of road crossing. Rather than spanning the width of the natural flow of rivers, streams and wetlands, roads are often built into the stream channel and a culvert is installed to allow for water flow. Many culverts are historically too small in diameter to allow adequate stream flow. As a result, these culverts can block fish passage and increase erosion up stream of the culvert itself. In Vermont, the Aquatic Organisms Steering Committee, made up of Vermont Transportation Agency, Vermont Fish & Wildlife and U.S. Forest Service, assessed the condition of over 200 large culverts in the Upper White River Watershed and found that one half block fish passage entirely and the

others block fish occasionally. These blockages can make miles of upstream habitat completely inaccessible for anadromous fish species, such as salmon. However, migration is important for many fish species in any watershed to maintain genetic mixing. Given the inherent connectivity of aquatic systems, it is best to address aquatic threats comprehensively rather than on a project-by-project or species-specific basis. Identifying and ranking all aquatic barriers will allow state agencies to address them systematically as resources and work programs permit. Transportation agencies actively monitor bridge status and functionality, but usually only in terms of their ability to move vehicle traffic – not fish. The aquatic barrier inventory can be incorporated into the transportation agency’s bridge improvement schedule to improve efficiency. However, the most critical barriers may need special priority, regardless of existing replacement schedules. Stream crossing structures should be designed to restore and maintain natural flow and hydrological regimes. Where possible, bridges should span the entire stream to accommodate the 100-year floodplain, riparian integrity and terrestrial movement. Creating an organized task force or working group can coordinate partners from various agencies and help ensure progress. Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife created the Fish Passage Task Force (ODFW, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Oregon Department of Transportation, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and other partners) to inventory, prioritize and remove fish passage barriers. The Task Force is developing passage designs that are economical as well as practical for wildlife. New Hampshire formed the “Stream Team” to focus on developing stream crossing guide-lines and restoration protocols (see NH SWAP, pp. 5-13).

http://www.wildlife